Technology in the past decade has made a lot of old rules obsolete. With towns and cities cutting staff left and right, how can anyone justify that kind of expense?

As you yourself document the demise of various advertising subsidies for newspapers the question becomes where will the revenues come from.

Good then to see today’s coverage in PaidContent.org of Bill Keller’s comments that the New York Times is again considering subscription as one way of generating additional revenue.

Unlike you and some of the other “socialist digerati” (to quote Henry Blodgett’s wry but apt description today in Silicon Alley Insider), Keller does not share the view that Times Select was a failure. Rather, Keller states that Times Select was discontinued due to a decision by Times management to open the firewall in order to generate more links and, potentially, more advertising revenue.

This is, of course, what you have long advocated — but it is premised on the availability of sufficient advertising revenue (as is much of your “What Would Google Do?” philosophy of open linking and networking), which is no longer proving to be the case in the current climate.

It was always a mischaracterization, or misunderstanding if one wishes to be charitable, for you to describe Times Select as a “failure.” It suited your purposes to make that claim, but it was not an accurate depiction of the reasons for its closure.

Now that Keller indicates that the Times is considering new online subscription opportunities, and reiterates that Times Select was not at all a financial failure, what evidence are you able to cite to support your opposition to a subscription model? Times Select was always your Exhibit #1.

Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski